get_trip

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-like operation without explicit statement of being read-only. No side effects, authorization needs, or behavioral traits beyond the basic retrieval are disclosed. For a simple getter, the description is minimally adequate but lacks robustness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences – one for purpose and one for the parameter. It is front-loaded, with the verb and resource in the first sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema (indicated by context signals), so describing return values is not needed. The description sufficiently covers the purpose and parameter source. It does not mention error conditions or expected output structure, but given the presence of output schema and only one parameter, it is fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides trip_id with type integer and no description. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that trip_id is the trip ID and can be obtained from list_trips. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage. It does not specify constraints like range or format, but the addition of the source is valuable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves trip details and all dates (여행 상세 정보와 전체 일자를 조회한다). The verb '조회한다' (retrieves) combined with the resource 'trip' makes the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like list_trips (which lists trips without detailed info) and get_day_content (which focuses on a specific day).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context by telling the user to obtain trip_id from list_trips (list_trips에서 확인). This gives a clear source for the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_day_content or what conditions might make it inappropriate. The guidance is implicit but adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.